272 A.3d 984
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- Bates pleaded guilty in Docket No. 2443-2015 (retail theft) and was sentenced and placed on probation; he was later paroled.
- New charges were filed in Docket No. 3421-2016 (drug and gun offenses); Bates was convicted on several counts, sentenced to aggregated prison terms, and the trial court revoked his probation at Docket No. 2443-2015 and imposed a consecutive sentence.
- While his direct appeal on Docket No. 3421-2016 was pending, Bates filed a PCRA petition on February 16, 2018 that pertained only to Docket No. 2443-2015; the PCRA court dismissed that petition in June 2018.
- After the direct appeal concluded, Bates filed a pro se PCRA petition on February 21, 2020 under Docket No. 3421-2016 (his first PCRA at that docket), but the PCRA court declined to appoint counsel and dismissed the petition on May 21, 2020.
- The Superior Court found that the PCRA court and the Superior Court had erred by allowing Bates to proceed pro se on his first PCRA at Docket No. 3421-2016 (and by treating his later filings as successive), vacated the dismissal, and remanded for appointment of counsel and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bates was entitled to appointed counsel on his first PCRA at Docket No. 3421-2016 | Bates: he never previously filed a PCRA under that docket and thus was entitled to counsel on his first PCRA there | PCRA court/Commonwealth: Bates already had an earlier PCRA and thus was not entitled to appointment for a subsequent petition | Court: vacated and remanded — earlier petition related to a different docket, so Bates’ 2020 petition must be treated as a first PCRA for which counsel should be provided |
| Whether a prior uncounseled and dismissed PCRA prevents a later petition from being treated as the petitioner’s first PCRA | Bates: prior, uncounseled dismissal should not bar treating the later petition as his first for purposes of appointment and amendment | PCRA court: treated the later filing as a subsequent petition and denied the protections accorded first-time PCRA petitioners | Court: relied on precedent (Williams, Albrecht, Duffey, Tedford) — where first PCRA was litigated/dismissed without counsel, a subsequent petition cannot be treated as an untimely second; remand for counsel and further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998) (denial of PCRA relief cannot stand unless petitioner was afforded counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 828 A.2d 981 (Pa. 2003) (a subsequent counseled petition may not be treated as an untimely second if the first was dismissed without counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Duffey, 713 A.2d 63 (Pa. 1998) (trial court erred by declining to appoint counsel on first PCRA; must permit litigation with counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Tedford, 781 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 2001) (where appellant files first PCRA without counsel, appellant shall be permitted to file amended petition with counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Stossel, 17 A.3d 1286 (Pa. Super. 2011) (failure to appoint counsel for an indigent, first-time PCRA petitioner requires sua sponte remand)
- Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 29 A.3d 1177 (Pa. Super. 2011) (first-time PCRA petitioners have a rule-based right to counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Quail, 729 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 1999) (right to counsel exists throughout post-conviction proceedings, including appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Andress, 260 A.3d 99 (Pa. Super. 2021) (vacating dismissal of a later PCRA and remanding for nunc pro tunc relief where failure to appoint counsel impaired first PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 244 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2020) (PCRA relief is collateral and unavailable while direct appeal is pending)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 817 A.2d 1153 (Pa. Super. 2003) (if reversed sentence ran concurrent, remand for resentencing is unnecessary)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 864 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2004) (claims that could be remedied under the PCRA are exclusive to the PCRA)